Recently, I wrote about Pennsylvania Senate Bill 645, which would create the “Public Employer Collective Bargaining Transparency Act.” The bill would require that collective bargaining agreements be made public in advance of their adoption, and I had suggested that although the intentions might be noble the law actually might be counterproductive.

I also mentioned that the bill had one other goal. This second new requirement would be to make clear that certain records relating to bargaining would be subject to disclosure under the Right to Know Law. Specifically, the law would clarify that the draft collective bargaining agreement is subject to disclosure once it is advertised as being ready for adoption. More troubling, though, is the requirement that the public employer would need to disclose “any documents that are presented by a public employer or received by a public employer from an employee organization, in the course of collective bargaining.”

Once again, though, this could create more problems than it solves. Bargaining sometimes requires candid and private communication, and that type of communication can be stifled when one party or another hesitates based on the fear that that their work product would or could be viewed later by parties for whom it was not intended.

The bill’s goal – creating accountability to collective bargaining – is noble. At the end of the day, though, local elected officials ARE accountable for the decisions they make with respect to collective bargaining agreements, just as with any other decisions they make involving public money and public trust. If the public disapproves of the way elected officials are handling bargaining, they can replace them with new elected officials.

At the state level, of course, the process is different. State contracts are negotiated by the Governor, the executive, rather that by the legislature. At least one proponent of the bill, the Commonwealth Foundation, correctly notes that the bill would would allow legislative input and oversight that currently is lacking at the state level. A better solution, though, would be to require legislative input by, for example, requiring a legislative ratification of state collective bargaining agreements.

At this point, the bill is still in committee in the state House, but we will keep an eye on it to see what, if any, changes public employers can expect.

A series of bills introduced in the Pennsylvania House and Senate this session would bring more transparency to the process of public sector bargaining. Whether this would be a benefit for the taxpayers, as suggested by the bills’ proponents, though, remains to be seen.

Last month Senate Bill 645 passed the Senate and was referred to the House, where the bill sits in the State Government Committee. This bill, known as the “Public Employer Collective Bargaining Transparency Act” would require that all public employers provide public notice of any proposed collective bargaining agreements in advance of, and for thirty days after, the signing of any agreement. Absent the public notice, the agreement would be void.

Currently, Pennsylvania’s Sunshine Law permits public employers to conduct bargaining in executive session, and most bargaining sessions in fact do occur in private. Often, and in fact by design, many times the agreements that result from the bargaining are not made known until after the employer and the employees’ union both approve the deal.

The bill would require the public notice presumably so that the public would be able to offer input into the agreement before it is already approved. Sponsors and supporters of the bill also have complained that the state legislature, which must fund these agreements with the state’s various unions, does not know what will be in those agreements and has no input into the terms that it will be obligated to try to fund.

While the argument has more merit with respect to state union contracts, since the legislature has no advanced input either, the proposed rule might be counterproductive at a local level, where the same problem does not exist. I wrote above that if often is by design that the details of an agreement are kept quiet until the agreement can be approved by the union membership and the governing body of the local government. This is intended to limit the extent to which the union members and supporters can place pressure on the governing body in an effort to influence the governing body’s vote on the agreement. In that sense, providing advanced public notice of a proposed agreement is likely to aid the union more so than the taxpayers.

If the stated goal of the bill is to provide more transparency in an attempt to limit union influence, the means employed to achieve that goal is not well suited to the goal, at least at the local level.

In a future post, I will address the bill’s second major requirement, which likewise may be counterproductive as well. In the meantime, I will continue to watch the progress of this bill and the others like it.

According to a report in the Philadelphia Inquirer, a federal Court has ruled that a Pennsylvania School District did not violate the free speech rights of a teacher when it took adverse action against her for comments made on a personal blog.

Natalie Munroe, a teacher in the Central Bucks School District, maintained a personal blog on which she referred to her students as “frightfully dim,” “utterly loathsome,” and “whiny.”  Although she didn’t mention any students by name and even tried to take steps to write anonymously, the District discovered the posts in 2012 and disciplined her.  She sued the District, claiming that she had a first amendment right to the speech since it was done outside of work.

The federal court disagreed with Ms. Munroe, acknowledging that although public employees do have some free speech protection, the protection is not unlimited.  Although there have only been a handful of cases like this, involving public employee speech online, Courts have addressed free speech issues like this for several decades, making clear that public employers do not violate the Constitutional free speech rights of employees by disciplining them for speech that is not on a matter of public concern.  Here, the Court pointed out that criticizing students online is so disruptive, and of such little value to public discourse, that the District’s action cannot be said to violate any free speech rights.

An appeal was promised by the teacher, but that will be a very uphill battle for her.  As should be intuitive, public employees should be careful about what they post online, while public employers should consult counsel before acting with respect to employee social media activity.